RE: Telechat Agenda Item: draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

[dropped iesg-secretary, no need to generate a mass set of toickets]

So... for ITU-T we have Scott.
And ITU tends to send more and more liaison statements to various
(random?) WGs, sometimes one statement to multiple WGs.
Do we trust that Scott has the energy/time to follow them all and
make sure that responses to such liaisons represent proper consensus?

If we do, then we should make that "expected trust" very clear to
Scott, and then I am fine with it.

My experience with the liaisons from ITU regarding ASON and such 
showed that Scott was NOT acting responsibly and timely.
Maybe he has more time now.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 29 augustus 2003 5:47
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Iesg-Secretary (E-mail); Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Telechat Agenda Item: draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt
> 
> 
> > The biggest potential issue I see is that it is not so
> > clear how we define a "consensus based" or an
> > "authoritative" answer back from a WG to another SDO.
> 
> that is (one reason) why we appoint liaisons
> 
> while, in general, the ietf is moving more from persons to
> process, this movement itself is, and rightly should be,
> slow.  we do not need to have massive formal process to do
> something unless we need it.  
> 
> in this case i think we can trust our liaison to represent
> the ietf on this particular channel, and to request more
> formal process on a particular response (or stimulus) if it
> is needed.
> 
> randy
>